[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
SMIRF
. Program that plays various 8x10 chess variants.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Hi Mats, you are arguing for a fast creating of a good chess playing program. A lot of programmers act like that. They establish a lot of methods to copycat human behavior and to replace intelligence by always growing looking up tables, calling this e.g. position learning. (Moreover they copycat each other among some few creative authors of OpenSource projects.) But that is not at all the kind of learning which deserves that name, instead it is a continued replacing of intelligence (which is proving itself by good results at RESTRICTED means) by stupid looking up. I do not claim, that that common modus operandi would not gain success, in chess it created programs better playing than human masters, and checkers seems to be solved by that. But that method might fail at more complex games like already 10x8 chess or anyway at the 19x19 go game, because it is an anti-intelligent approach. Regard the SMIRF project as an intermediate drosophila for to find methods to handle the go game much later using the made experiences.
Of course, I did not mean 'stupid looking up', like opening books and endgame tables. I did not mean concrete knowledge. What I had in view are the established *chess laws*. For instance, in the opening you must direct attention to the centre. There are two methods, either a direct fight for the central squares, or an initial forfeiture followed by an immediate undermining of the points of support. Flank operations must not begin before the situation in the centre is clarified. In the endgame the king must become active, and take heed of opposition, etc., etc. In my own weak little DOS program ( http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/blindc.htm ) there is no book knowledge, either. But it tries to control the centre, nevertheless. And it seems to play the openings rather well, without opening book. Facts are that programmers are reluctant to teach the programs this kind of knowledge. Instead they want to create as effective algorithms as possible, so that the correct move is reached anyway. This creates a form of chess that is lacking in variance. There are very many ways of handling a position, provided that you follow the chess laws. If you don't follow the chess laws, but only calculate, then the program will decide for only one possibility. This is a faulty conclusion while there are other moves that are just as good. In this sense, I'm afraid, this project is similar to other chess software solutions in that you put to much trust in the calculative capability of the program. I don't see why abstract knowledge cannot be combined with an AI approach. /Mats
Hi Mats, please have a look on that, what you have said. You are using such names like 'central squares' or 'established chess laws'. But that kind of arguing is just the problem. Why are central squares that important? Where is the center in different chess960 games, where the king himself might be decentralized? By that you learn, that such categories are derived from more essential but abstract things. Another more transparent example are the average piece exchange values: where do those traditional values come from? What is with that at different variants? At my webpage you will find a simple theory to derive such values even for unusual piece types or board sizes. As I tried to tell you, I am not interested in that kind of chess knowledge, where it at least leads to a simple implementing of a copycat behaviour. If you want to create an effective and INTELLIGENT chess program, you first have to UNDERSTAND the basics of chess, not to imitate the so called chess knowledge, which is moreover differing enormously depending on which chess master you will ask. Then you will have to TRANSLATE it into the world and language of a CPU. Today there are a lot of effective but mostly huge chess programs. So there is no urgent need for to write another one. But on the other side there are very few intelligently working approaches using instead very restricted means. I am arguing for to have computer chess program tournaments with LIMITED means, especially targeting the persistant storage size including the program executeable. They should be bound to a special upper bound. And it should be measured in a packed form e.g. as RAR for to skip inner redundancies as generated depending of the selected computer language and to avoid the temptation to undergo any limits by including packed knowledge.
To uncover the *laws* underlying any subject matter is the gist of the scientific paradigm. I am surprised that there are people who think differently, which is interesting, of course. Another thing: there are so many chess variants on this site that are better than those Capablanca variants, with their rather brutal pieces. Personally I even prefer the Amazon to the Archbishop and Chancellor. The Amazon is easier to handle, and it must hide to all other pieces, so the games are easier to predict. /Mats
Smirf clearly improves its positional play when given more time. This is unusual. But it has a rather passive style of play. Another thought: different alternative variants can also be achieved by keeping the same pieces but introduce the Gustavian board ( http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/gustaviii.htm ). S Trenholme did this in Capablanca Gustavian (zrf) which can be downloaded from yahoo (chess variants). It is an interesting concept. The smaller board might affect the unruly Archbishops and Chancellors so that they are somewhat neutralized. /Mats
How much faster do you estimate that SMIRF will run on RISC-architecture, Mac hardware and OS than CISC-architecture, IBM-compatible hardware with MS Windows?
The future of SMIRF: well, in the meantime there have been some questions from different sides, what will be with SMIRF. First, I am about to migrate it to the Mac OS X. That is, because I am angry about MS Vista and its unsufficient driver set (especially 64 Bit), its bad behaviour against programmers and its several backdoors for government, police or secret service investigations targeting every file on a Vista system (as I prosume). In contrast Mac OS X is again going to create a homegeneous 64 Bit user landscape starting with coming OS X Leopard version. SMIRF will become 64 Bit then. There will be no big speed step by that, because SMIRF is no a bitboard based program. But it will use the grown register set, and it will then benefit from any compiler optimization improvement. I remember days, where I investigated to have an ARM RISC processor based solution, but there are currently no fast desktop systems or sponsors, which would provide me with such a development environment. Thus I stay on Intel/AMD64 based hardware (unfortunately also without any sponsor yet). SMIRF will not be merely migrated to Mac OS X. I intend to have a lot of new design elements: a) redesign the internal data structure and caching logic b) rewrite the position detail evaluation function (which is still the first slow draft, may be a 200% speed up then) c) support additionally also an additional piece (General = N+B+R) d) support blocked squares (to customize the playable square zone) e) build in prompting (instead of badly working permanent brain) f) attempt to implement multithreaded multiprocessor usage g) create a separated unit for to contain move logic and pgn file maintenance beside of the GUI h) attempt to have a UCI protocol based GUI That is a huge project and will need a remarkable amount of my free time. So do not wait for a finished Mac OS X version in the near future. May be some of then made progresses will be reimplemented into the working Windows 32 Bit solution, but from now on possible updates would only be published for the donators' bonus version. Reinhard.
A missing item in your future design elements:
i) 10x10 board (e.g., Grand Chess, which is popular)
/Mats
i) 10x10 board (e.g., Grand Chess, which is popular)
/Mats
Hi Mats, a 10x10 board exceeds my actually used numeric base structures. Thus I do not yet support such big boards. 9x9 boards would be possible with some restrictions, but to support e.g. Shogi is beside of my current intentions. If I would ever implement a second engine line, that probably would support something like the Go game. Reinhard.
Well, then, please add Mastodon Chess (8x10) instead so we get
a big board variant of prominence.
/Mats
a big board variant of prominence.
/Mats
Smirf has a fondness of developing the knights immediately. The resultant positions are often classic in character. A classical style implies moving one pawn two steps and developing the pieces fast. This is sometimes employed as a defence method with black. But practice has shown that white's winning chances, should he employ this strategy, are scarce. At least as white, Smirf should more often try to move two pawns in the centre immediately, e.g. c4, and d4. Instead he often blocks the c-pawn. This isn't necessarily bad, but it reduces the strategical possibilities immensely. The c-pawn, both with white and black, is of immense strategical import. Even if black blocks it, typically the knight will soon be removed and the the c-pawn pushed, like in Ruy Lopez. The king fianchetto is also typical of modern opening strategy. I think that the opening play is the greatest problem, when opening books aren't used. A more modern style would increase Smirf's playing strength very much, and, also, that it doesn't try to win (or hold on to) a pawn in the early opening, but, rather, that it could even forfeit a pawn. A possible way of reducing the knight moves could be to randomize the first move. /Mats
Hi Mats, one of my first goals is to make SMIRF play self-containedly especially through the opening stage. I am happy, that this works even for randomized starting positions half-way sufficiently. To manipulate the opening behaviour to gain more success simply by adding some quirks instead of modifying the global model concept will destroy the chance of finding an abstract and consistent base model. Still I am e.g. not fully satisfied with my average piece value model, and the evaluation function is three times as slow as necessary. Nevertheless I have thoughts to distribute a predefined amount of evaluation to be randomizedly disposed in chosing second class moves during the beginning to gain a less determinated play at fixed opening arrays. Actually I still recommend to play Chess960 or 10x8 CRC to have more diversified game experiences.
Well, migrating into Mac OS is migrating into oblivion. How many chess enthusiasts use Mac? Less that one per thousand, I'd guess. /Mats
Hi, Mats, beside of the fact, that the Windows distribution of SMIRF still is the only one and just has been updated (in the bonus version), it does not matter to me, how many people are using Smirf, but in contrast it does, how many are really supporting it. And, because of this number is nearly vanishing, I simply decided do migrate to Mac OS X because of software political reasons. Yesterday I have published on my web site my new model for calculating the average piece exchange values for various gaits, both: simplified and improved, at http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachansatz1_e.html. Reinhard.
How can they support something they don't understand? I never took the courses in AI when I studied computer science, long ago. Had I done this, possibly, I could better understand your notions. It isn't exactly trivial what you're doing, neither the algorithmic notions, nor the underlying philosophy. It is the latter I have the most problems with. I think I am essentially a Platonist, thinking in terms of the invisible Forms of chess. The notion that algorithmic methods can fully simulate aspects of human intelligence in chessplaying is beyond me. Had it involved computational intelligence, and an iterative development or learning, then I could better understand the notion of an AI chessprogram. /Mats
Hi Mats, let me explain, that my understanding of AI is NOT simulating anything but developing solutions genuine to machine. Intelligent behavior is not merely imitating. Now, how to support the SMIRF project: a) intellectually: by showing interest, writing comments, testing, giving constructive critic, mentioning the SMIRF project where it would make sense. There is no need to exceed intellectual limits, we all mostly are specialists, thus don't worry when there will be gaps, I don't either. b) financially: where fans like to use the SMIRF program, they should be aware, that there are costs for organizing and maintaining hard and software, e.g. actual development environments, and that it needs a lot of time, wherein no money could be earned. Thus it makes sense to those people to place some donations via paypal.
The link to SMIRF is dead. A transition is underway that will take a long time from SMIRF for IBM-compatible computers running MS Windows to Octopus for Mac computers and OS. SMIRF > Octopus (in German) http://web.mac.com/rescharn/iWeb/Octopus/Blog/Blog.html The last version of SMIRF released was BC-168a. If you want it but missed your chance to download it, please send me an E-mail privately. I can send you the file. Please remember it is donationware- donations to its developer, Reinhard Scharnagl, are encouraged!
The world seems to be not interested in SMIRF's 8x8 and 10x8 concept. Regards, Reinhard.
I don't think the problem is a lack of interest in SMIRF, per se, but a lack of interest in Chess Variants in general. I have downloaded and played SMIRF; indeed, I use this program to help test and create mating positions with my 10x8 Capablanca variant.
Don't feel bad. I have worked hard making my own open source project. Have I gotten a single cent for this project? No.
- Sam
Well, Sam, I am not that rich, so it would help somehow to have some minor contributions e.g. for to buy some more recent development tools and for to update my hardware from time to time. But it is more disturbing to experience people seeing no value in such software as long it is free. Thus freeware is devaluating the scene and does a bull's job to chess variant software. Making the entry version of SMIRF a donationware should have been signaling that message, but most of SMIRF's users nevertheless mixed that kind of releasing up with freeware. Another demotivating detail is, that though I have tried to publish all of my chess pages using both German and English languages, no (as far as I know) native English speaking chess page had been turned to become bilingual too by also supporting German, that way following my example. This makes me feel like a second class person. Therefore I have decided to no longer continue such an approach, instead I will merely use my German language, if I ever would relaunch my web site again. Thus developing Octopus out of SMIRF's bones is done rather slowly and privately. That would not exclude really interested people from contacting me or following the project, nevertheless I am ignoring the public, e.g. by chosing Mac OS X as development system, saying 'sorry' to MS Vista, and by redirecting my old site to a small German language blogging site. Reinhard.
I appreciate the 3 versions of SMIRF loaded with different CRC material values that you sent me for testing purposes. I realize compiling them was not a productive use of your time toward developing Octopus or creating future versions of SMIRF. So, I sincerely hate to complain. Internal Playtesting- Scharnagl http://www.symmetryperfect.com/pass Push the 'download now' button. I played one game of Embassy Chess (mirror) at 40 minutes per move. The white player was version 0 (standard) and the black player was version 2 (highest archbishop value). The black player won. However, the victory was not attributable to the white player valuing its archbishop too low in an exchange. Instead, it was attributable to the white player valuing its queen too low in an exchange. White traded its 1 queen for 1 knight + 1 rook belonging to black. This gave black a 3:2 advantage in supreme pieces which, over the course of the game, was reduced to a 1:0 advantage in supreme pieces which gave black the ability to out-position white in the endgame, gain material and win. The game was not even close or long ... ending in 53 moves. I have seen this happen many times before. Of course, with version 0 and version 2 having identical material values for the queen, rook and knight, it could have just an likely 'thrown the game away' to the other player. That is the reason I cannot continue playtesting with what you provided to me. Under the Nalls model (for example), there are 3 supreme piece(s) enhancements: the non color-bound enhancement, the non color-changed enhancement and the compound enhancement. In CRC, they total a 43.75% bonus for the archbishop above the material value of its components (the bishop and the knight), a 12.50% bonus for the chancellor above the material value of its components (the rook and the knight) and a 18.75% bonus for the queen above the material value of its components (the rook and the bishop). The entire purpose of the supreme piece(s) enhancements is to provide a measurably appropriate deterrent to trading any supreme pieces too lightly to your opponent thereby ending-up with a potentially game-losing disadvantage in the ratio of supreme pieces. The Muller model is similar in this respect. If I had to choose only ONE foundation, experimental or theoretical, for my model, then I would choose experimental without apprehension. Of course, I am allowed to use both. So, I do because I remain hopeful that eventually, thru relentless effort, my theory will attain a worthwhile condition (that has previously eluded it) whereby the theoretical and experimental foundations will become mutually reinforcing. I would characterize my position as regarding both the experimental and theoretical foundations as important (although I definitely consider the experimental foundation primary). I would characterize Muller's position as being that the experimental foundation is everything that matters and the theoretical foundation is just an unneeded crude, inaccurate approximation to experimental numbers decorated with arbitrary words and concepts. Maybe so? I would characterize Scharnagl's position as being that the theoretical foundation is supremely important as it must dictate and predict the optimum experimental numbers. [I agree that a great theory should be expected to do so.] Furthermore, the theory must be elegantly simple and intuitively accessible. [I consider this expectation unrealistic and impossible. Generally, the optimum material values for chess variants are too complex in their estimation-calculation to be reducible to simple formulae without sacrificing accuracy to an unacceptable extent.] Scharnagl: Please reconsider revising your CRC model even if doing so unavoidably renders your theory somewhat more complicated in its concepts and formulae? The playing strength of SMIRF (standard version) can probably be improved significantly by taking such steps.
H. G. Muller wrote on Fri, Jul 11, 2008 08:41 PM UTC:Indeed,this is a known problem with Smirf. Because the underlying piece-value model is linear in the average piece mobility, the piece values become additive, and a the value of Q becomes that of R+B, and that of A that of B+N. For A this is more disastrously wrong than for Q, but trading Q for R+B is still quite bad (like blundering away a Pawn). For the short-range leapers I found a clear non-linearity in the relation between (maximum) number of target squares N and piece value V: V = (30+5/8*N)*N (centiPawn). The methodology of basing piece values on board-averaged mobilities seems flawed to me: it overestimates the impact of bad squares where the moblity is low. In practical play you avoid putting the piece on such squares. e.g. take a few thousand positions randomly chosen from grandmaster games, and count how many of those had a Knight on a corner square. It seems a safe bet that this will be FAR LESS than 4/64 = 6%, and in fact I would be really surprised if it is more than 0.6%. It would be interesting to observe the frequencies with which pieces visit each board square in grandmaster games, and determine how this correlates with the mobility of the piece.
SMIRF still is an 8x8 and 10x8 multivariant engine and GUI at amateur level. Experiencing some problems when being executed at Windows XP 64 Bit I recompiled an actual version of SMIRF and made it downloadable from http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachsmirf_e.html. Thus SMIRF still will have its conceptual weaknesses during mating operations. Nevertheless some 10x8 fans might welcome the current version made available. Please report on still existing weaknesses of the GUI or the download link. SMIRF itself will not be improved, instead there will be a rewritten private engine Octopus.
SMIRF is no longer available. People enjoy playing clone programs. Multivariant engines are out of focus. Maybe situation will be changing after some years ...
24 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.